Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Tops Repayment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill that would have made some TOPS recipients repay lost awards
Summary
After hours of questioning on administration and student impact, the Louisiana House on April 21 rejected HB 385, a bill that would have required some TOPS scholarship recipients to repay the semester in which they lost eligibility. Lawmakers raised concerns about collections, constitutional notice and cost burdens on students and institutions.
Representative Brett Bamberg introduced House Bill 385 to require certain recipients of the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS) to repay the amount of the award for the semester in which a student loses eligibility, with a sponsor's amendment limiting repayment to a single semester and enumerating 13 exemptions (including parental leave, medical or substance-abuse rehabilitation, military service, transfer to selective-enrollment programs, natural disaster and "exceptional circumstances"). Bamberg said the change was intended to protect taxpayers who fund about $320 million a year for the TOPS program and to encourage student accountability while preserving multiple exemptions.
During extended questioning, legislators repeatedly pressed the sponsor on how the repayment system would be administered. Representative Jordan, Representative Freyberg and others asked who would collect repayments, whether amounts would be sent to credit bureaus or subject to wage garnishment, what interest would apply and which office would bear administrative costs. Bamberg told the House that collection mechanics, interest rates and reporting procedures were left to the Board of Regents to implement by rule and that he had not provided those specifics in the bill text.
Lawmakers also criticized the bill's retroactive application to cohorts that accepted TOPS awards before the repayment obligation existed. Representative Jordan invoked Article I, Section 23 (contracts) and questioned whether imposing new liabilities without notice would impair contracts. Bamberg said he would be open to changing the effective cohort year but otherwise defended the bill as a means to safeguard public dollars.
Members debated whether the proposal effectively converts a merit-based scholarship into a loan for some students, and whether it would disincentivize enrollment in four-year programs or increase the state's administrative burden. Estimates discussed on the floor varied: the sponsor said 13—18% of recipients lose awards annually, and lawmakers referenced an estimate that roughly 46,000 students receive TOPS, which would mean several thousand affected students per year.
Representative Marcel offered an amendment that would have directed repaid funds to the management board of the institution the student attended; the amendment failed. Multiple members, including Representative Freyberg and Representative Glorioso, opposed the bill on grounds that it risked harming low-income students, lacked administrative detail, and raised constitutional questions about imposing new conditional liabilities.
On final passage the House voted against HB 385; the clerk announced a machine tally of 38 yays and 62 nays and the bill failed. The sponsor had previously sought to recommit the measure to Appropriations; that procedural motion also failed earlier in the debate.
What comes next: Because HB 385 failed on final passage, the bill does not go to the Senate. Lawmakers and staff who pressed for more detail said they expect any future effort on this topic to include a fiscal note, a defined collection mechanism and clearer definitions of exemptions and affected cohorts.
